ESPN MBB BPI...is a joke

Ok I know it's early and I know ESPN is a joke, but cummon man. ESPN BPI index has UM at #42! Wisky is at #8, Moo U is at #16, Iowa !!! at #25, Indiana #29, Purdue #36 and OSU at #37. WTF kinda ranking is that. 7th in the B1G? Why does ESPN exist?

Nope. John Beilein is good at things. I can sorta buy we're currently 24th in KenPom because I'm not sure who scores yet. I think we're probably actually higher than that now and by the end of the season we'll be... weirdly like a peak Bo Ryan team.

I honestly prefer being under-ranked early. Less pressure on a young team trying to learn Beilein's system. Plus it won't be a big deal when we drop one to a crappier team in the first couple weeks. I much prefer peaking right when they put the brackets together.

Most predictive models look back year over year to see the A/E ratio. That is, Actual to Expected. This shows errors in the model. You can see of they're correlated by going back 2, 3, 5, 10 years. And if they are, you can fix the model.

I like this rating. It makes great bulletin board stuff to motivate our team. I do not like high preseason ratings because the players might believe them and slack off. The only ratings that mean anything are those based on performance- not on speculation. ESPN really doesn't understand how Bellein develops players. They just believe that last season's record, personnel loses and recruiting ratings determine how a team will perform. They really don't believe that coaches do anything except design plays.

We should stop being angry at them, ESPN is a complete wasteland and all of their talent has been removed for sTepHen A sMitH hot takes. Coach B will make them look like fools again, just give it some time.

Makes sense, 2 major factors in BPI, especially this early, is returning production and recruiting rankings of incoming freshman.

I have no clue how good BPI is in its mid-season form, but it's always going to under-rank a team that just lost Moe, Rahk, etc and a coach that consistently finds the diamonds in the rough in recruiting.

Ok, that's a good theory. I kinda thought the same thing, but the Fighting Izzos were a worse team last year, they lost as much as UM if not more and our recruiting class is as good if not better. Sooo, that doesn't work.

Btw, if that was the way it worked Maryland would be ranked higher as their recruiting class was the best in the B1G and they have some talent left, but Turgeon is a moron so....

We had a pretty highly ranked recruiting class--but the best player in the class (Iggy) was not ranked because of Canada (despite Rivals, etc saying that he'd be a five-star if they actually ranked him). So (in addition to the reasons you gave) we're actively underrated by any numerical ranking system because of a blind spot.

Rivals lists Iggy as a 5*. That wasn't a hypothetical, they just didn't give him a full ranking. 247 did and had him as a high 4*.

Any formula that ignores that is being sabotaged by somebody. Canadian players have made an impact in CBB in recent years. Trying to rank them isn't some new experiment though. Jevohn Shepherd was ranked by Rivals and Scout almost 15 years ago.

Yes--Rivals and ESPN didn't give him numerical rankings, though, which would have figured into the 247 composite (and for ESPN's BPI, no numerical ranking for a recruit by ESPN would presumably mean he's not counted).

That's not true though. There's a huge statistical correlation between pre-season ranking and final ranking. Teams that start high get a big benefit of the doubt, even in losses. Teams that start low need to "prove it" and drop a lot more if they lose because they got "exposed". Yes, rankings have no bearing on how the team performs, but preseason rankings (at least AP type stuff, less so the preseason RPI/BPI which is more mechanical and also stupid) absolutely impact the team's eventual rankings.